What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@failures art,

Quote:

Perhaps this is the best example of how it's hard to give up supernatural superstitions. You are holding out for that second cup, not because there are any reasons to, but because you want that reality. It's an aesthetic philosophy--nothing more.

You seem to think I hold to supernatural superstitions (whatever the hell that is). I do not. I AM holding that they may be possible, because I am not willing to pretend I know what I do not know. I have too much respect for myself to pretend that kind of nonsense.

So tell me, Art, is there any possibility that there are what most humans would term “supernatural” events or beings.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm, I am not missing any point. I am stating my case fully and with complete awareness of what is being offered in response.

Get with the program.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm, I am not missing any point. I am stating my case fully and with complete awareness of what is being offered in response.

Get with the program.

If what I said in my last post is incorrect... pull it apart... if not don't just make terse banal substanceless statements i.e. backup what you say or try to keep silent because what you do say in response to posts mostly amounts to hot air or mischief making ... IMHO.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If what I said in my last post is incorrect... pull it apart... if not don't just make terse banal substanceless statements i.e. backup what you say or try to keep silent because what you do say in response to posts mostly amounts to hot air or mischief making ... IMHO.

I don't think so, igm, but I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me on this matter.

This all started with me asking a reasonable question of Art. It a question that ought to be asked often of people in many circumstances. It has gotten out of hand not because of what I am saying, but because the question makes some people feel uncomfortable. Trace the genesis if you want...or don't.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
If what I said in my last post is incorrect... pull it apart... if not don't just make terse banal substanceless statements i.e. backup what you say or try to keep silent because what you do say in response to posts mostly amounts to hot air or mischief making ... IMHO.

I don't think so, igm, but I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me on this matter.

This all started with me asking a reasonable question of Art. It a question that ought to be asked often of people in many circumstances. It has gotten out of hand not because of what I am saying, but because the question makes some people feel uncomfortable. Trace the genesis if you want...or don't.

You asked your question. You got a full and detailed answer over many posts. You didn't accept that answer but you offered no response apart from restating your original question in the briefest way possible (as you always do). You have an extreme view of what it means to say we have knowledge of something. I and others have explained many times that our definition is a commonsense definition a definition which is not extreme like yours but a knowledge that is always a work-in-progress.

Also, not having full knowledge of something is not the same as saying we cannot dismiss the possibility that supernatural forces are at work. An increase in knowledge is evident whilst a belief in the supernatural is in retreat. The two I believe are inextricably linked.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You seem to think I hold to supernatural superstitions (whatever the hell that is). I do not.

So you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but you set an extra plate on the table at dinner. You know, just in case. Yeah, that makes sense.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I AM holding that they may be possible, because I am not willing to pretend I know what I do not know. I have too much respect for myself to pretend that kind of nonsense.

So fairies and unicorns then? Yup, nothing says a person has a deep respect from themselves like holding out for possibility of leprechauns.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So tell me, Art, is there any possibility that there are what most humans would term “supernatural” events or beings.

Here we are again. The "what most humans would term" is a statement that specifically identifies a limitation in our observation and language.

You live the methodology you're arguing against. I told you so.

If novel beings or events exist that we would, for lack of a better understanding, call supernatural, what would we term them with a greater understanding?

Answer: We'd call the sun god a star.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

So you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but you set an extra plate on the table at dinner.

Only a fool would do that. Far better to leave the tools out for it to give the car a servicing.

By offering ridiculous examples, fa, you blunt your point.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

You asked your question. You got a full and detailed answer over many posts. You didn't accept that answer but you offered no response apart from restating your original question in the briefest way possible (as you always do). You have an extreme view of what it means to say we have knowledge of something. I and others have explained many times that our definition is a commonsense definition a definition which is not extreme like yours but a knowledge that is always a work-in-progress.

Also, not having full knowledge of something is not the same as saying we cannot dismiss the possibility that supernatural forces are at work. An increase in knowledge is evident whilst a belief in the supernatural is in retreat. The two I believe are inextricably linked.

Thank you very much for sharing your belief about this igm. It was interesting to hear. Unfortunately I know people who "believe" there is a GOD...and others who "believe" there are no gods. I also know of people who believe they are Napoleon...or who believe they can fly without artificial assistance--so I do not put much stock in beliefs.

But I do appreciate your taking time to share yours with me.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4973496)
Frank Apisa wrote:

You seem to think I hold to supernatural superstitions (whatever the hell that is). I do not.

So you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but you set an extra plate on the table at dinner. You know, just in case. Yeah, that makes sense.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I AM holding that they may be possible, because I am not willing to pretend I know what I do not know. I have too much respect for myself to pretend that kind of nonsense.

So fairies and unicorns then? Yup, nothing says a person has a deep respect from themselves like holding out for possibility of leprechauns.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So tell me, Art, is there any possibility that there are what most humans would term “supernatural” events or beings.

Here we are again. The "what most humans would term" is a statement that specifically identifies a limitation in our observation and language.

You live the methodology you're arguing against. I told you so.

If novel beings or events exist that we would, for lack of a better understanding, call supernatural, what would we term them with a greater understanding?

Answer: We'd call the sun god a star.

A
R
T

Art, thank you for your response. I think Spendius’ response to it makes more sense than yours, but I do appreciate the effort.

On the question of “What is the nature of existence?”…or… “How do we account for existence?”…I do not think it unreasonable to suppose the possibility of a GOD or of gods. When asked about the issue, I state that I do not know if gods exist or not.

I do not get into discussions about fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn except when in conversation with atheists wanting to make the uncertainty appear silly.

What could I tell ya?

For some people…saying, “I do not know” comes very hard. It doesn’t for me.

If you originally were saying that one possible explanation for “everything” or “something” could be what most would term supernatural causes…then I agree with you. All things, under those circumstances, are explainable.

If you discount that possible explanation…then I ask again, do you KNOW all things are explainable, or is it just a guess?

1 Reply

@igm,

I was mowing the lawn, but I was laughing at something you said—and to be fair to you, I wanted to clear up what you actually meant.

You wrote:

Quote:

You have an extreme view of what it means to say we have knowledge of something. I and others have explained many times that our definition is a commonsense definition a definition which is not extreme like yours but a knowledge that is always a work-in-progress.

I guess I do have an “extreme view” of what ‘Knowing” means. I think when a person says he/she “KNOWS” something, he or she actually has to know it.

I guess you are suggesting that you and the others here feel it is okay to just come close to knowing in order to be taken seriously when an assertion is made that the item in question is “known.”

That makes no sense to me, but I am willing for you to expand on it...and perhaps I can come to appreciate your position more fully.

Suppose some Christian came into this thread and said, “I KNOW there is a GOD!”

Would you apply your standard to your considerations of that assertion…or would you tend to be more extreme? If you were to apply your standard, the individual would be able to say that he/she knows it because of a common sense definition (which is what people like Augustine and Aquinas tried to do)—and you would have to acknowledge that the person actually KNOWS something that others in this forum also KNOW cannot be.

Do you see the problem?

Could you expand on your thoughts here?

Do the others here feel igm is on to something significant here?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

On the question of “What is the nature of existence?”…or… “How do we account for existence?”…I do not think it unreasonable to suppose the possibility of a GOD or of gods. When asked about the issue, I state that I do not know if gods exist or not.

I do not get into discussions about fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn except when in conversation with atheists wanting to make the uncertainty appear silly.

So this is interesting.

Elves, fairies, dragons, wizards, leprechauns, and unicorns are supernatural beings for which their powers are limited. To you these are unreasonable. However you find it more reasonable to consider the concept of gods, which have often a definition of infinite power and ability to be more reasonable.

You see, the unicorn is a more reasonable thing to consider than a god. The burden of proving it is less so than the god, because the claim to it's abilities is less spectacular. Yet you'll not consider it because it's silly. Not silly, you'll consider far more spectacular claims as worthwhile. Your philosophy is purely aesthetic. There is no reason that you can exclude the silly creatures, and hang on to the gods. You're picking and choosing.

As an example. Consider the probability of the following statements being true.

"I saw a dog in the park"
"I saw a dog in the park today"
"I saw a white dog in the park today"
"I saw a white dog with a blue collar in the park today"
"I saw a white dog with a blues collar in the park today, and it spoke English to me"

As the claim becomes more specific and more things are added, the probability goes down.

A) "There exists a being that can fly and blow fire"
B) "There exists a being that can do everything."

(A) represents a dragon. It's a lesser being than (B) a god. If a god can do everything, that would also include flying and breathing fire. Which of these beings is more reasonable for consideration?

You're not alone though. Lots of people spend time thinking about gods and don't think about the other creatures of myth. It's funny how the more a supernatural being offers us, the more we take time to consider them. It's a mercenary mindset. So which supernatural beings do we think about the most? The ones that promise to give us not just a lot, but everything; eternity; immortality; infinite bliss.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What could I tell ya?

You could start by explaining your arbitrary (<-- this is how that word is used) choice to exclude some supernatural claims, but not others.

What you've done is simply created a secondary level of belief in the supernatural. A category of things to be considered. From here, you can say you don't know about this or that, but you cherry pick which things to possibly believe in.

Frank Apisa wrote:

For some people…saying, “I do not know” comes very hard. It doesn’t for me.

This is nothing but self praise. You aren't actually in the position you're describing. You may fancy yourself the sensible open minded person who is content without knowing with absolute certainty, but you aren't. You position is unsustainable given that supernatural claims are infinitely diverse, and you're categorizing them into what is worth consideration. That's cognitive dissonance. In this case, I'd say it very much is a struggle with not knowing despite claims otherwise.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you originally were saying that one possible explanation for “everything” or “something” could be what most would term supernatural causes…then I agree with you. All things, under those circumstances, are explainable.

If you discount that possible explanation…then I ask again, do you KNOW all things are explainable, or is it just a guess?

"under those circumstances"

Dude, these are our circumstances. I've already pointed this out, and explored the potential alternative circumstances. My knowing becomes believing when you can make the cups logically opaque.

A
R
T

2 Replies

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

So this is interesting.

Elves, fairies, dragons, wizards, leprechauns, and unicorns are supernatural beings for which their powers are limited. To you these are unreasonable.

Where did I say that?

Do you make this stuff up yourself…or do you have help?

When we finish with this joke, Art, we will go on to the others.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Jeez!

0 Replies

@failures art,

I have to come to Frank's defense here (not that he needs it, but I'm getting tiredof the BS some of you self-described atheists are starting to come out with).

Nowhere has Frank said that he believes in, or is even willing to believe in, the kind of nonsense gods you seems to have in mind when you use the word 'God.' That sort of god, quite rightly, belongs in the same toy box as pixies, fairies and leprachauns. All Frank has said is that he is not prepared to absolutely deny the existence of some power greater than anything a human mind can imagine or come close to understanding. There may be such a power; there may not. Apisa has an open mind on the subject.

I notice that nobody has come up with a definition of 'God' on this thread.

Whenever one of my atheist friends tells me that he/she does not "believe in God," I usually ask them to tell me what they mean by that word -- 'god.' And after they're done with their definition, 99 percent of the time I have to agree with them. I don't believe that Aesop's fables nonsense either. I don't think that Frank is talking about the god of the Judeo-Christian Bible here. He is refering to a force, a higher power, if you will, that transcends human understanding. And he is only saying that he is willing to entertain the possibility that such a thing might exist.

Bringing trolls and fairies into this is just muddying the waters to serve your own purpose. A rejection of the Bible in its entirety does not necessarily make one an atheist. Saying that one has an open mind on the subject of what sorts of forces may or may not be operational in our world does not make one a true believer.

I'm amused by the militant atheists on this thread and on this site. Some of you guys are worse than any fundamentalist evangelical Christian preacher I've ever heard at a tent meeting.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So this is interesting.

Elves, fairies, dragons, wizards, leprechauns, and unicorns are supernatural beings for which their powers are limited. To you these are unreasonable.

Where did I say that?

Do you make this stuff up yourself…or do you have help?

When we finish with this joke, Art, we will go on to the others.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not get into discussions about fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn except when in conversation with atheists wanting to make the uncertainty appear silly.

I guess my question is: Why don't you get into these discussions?

If you don't hold these things to be categorically different, then what did you mean by the above statement?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Thank you, Lustig. I am delighted someone can actually get the point I have made repeatedly...although I suspect they get it, but prefer not to acknowledge that they do.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I've already said how I define knowledge, it's the same way science does... as a work-in-progress. I've already said that we do not have 'full' knowledge of anything and we will probably not achieve this but this on going quest for further knowledge can have benefits for mankind. Your position on the other hand has no such benefits.

If a Christian said they know there is a God... I would ask them for evidence or ask them if they believed that on faith alone... I would not confuse their statement with the way science uses the word in the sense of a work-in-progress.

Wisdom is a different matter... so to is absolute truth... but knowledge can be defined as: what we understand about a subject at this point in time.

Now, if you said there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute knowledge i.e. if you qualified what you've said in this way then I'd be more open to your dogmatic remarks towards Art.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I guess my question is: Why don't you get into these discussions?

If you don't hold these things to be categorically different, then what did you mean by the above statement?

Actually, Art, what I said was:

On the question of “What is the nature of existence?”…or… “How do we account for existence?”…I do not think it unreasonable to suppose the possibility of a GOD or of gods. When asked about the issue, I state that I do not know if gods exist or not.

I do not get into discussions about fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn except when in conversation with atheists wanting to make the uncertainty appear silly.

My point is that when dealing with the question of the nature of existence...or trying to account for existence or its nature, I discuss "gods" as one of the possible options.

Those other things are categorically different, because they are not brought into the conversation as possible reasons for existence...or to try to deal with understanding existence.

Are there gods, Art?

Do you know?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

A definition of "God" (<--capitalized) is beyond the topic. Additionally, such a definition would inherently monotheistic, and would bias any exploration of the topic. If we then start defining 'gods' (<--lower case) we'll be here forever. Moreover, why then would we exclude defining all other supernatural beings?

The objective is to explore how people justify believing in the supernatural. Frank is being an excellent subject as he reveals what is the base for a person to believe in any. In this case, an aesthetic philosophy about the universe designed to make room for things he's interested in, and exclude those he isn't. How a person becomes a believer in the supernatural is only one step further: Filling the gaps with what they see fit.

When you start speaking of power beyond our understanding as definition, you're paving the way for the end of all gods and the supernatural. The power of the sun was one beyond our understanding. Even as we understand it, we are still insignificant to it. That power is not magical; not supernatural.

Whether or not Frank is talking about the Judeo-Christian god changes what? I've not assumed he is. However it does seem that he'd be more interested in talking about the possibility of it than of Thor.

Of course the rejection of the bible doesn't make someone an atheist. There are dozens (hundreds perhaps) of religions to pick from. Why are you focused on this specific one and it's close relatives? I'm not.

But let's deal with this:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I'm amused by the militant atheists on this thread and on this site. Some of you guys are worse than any fundamentalist evangelical Christian preacher I've ever heard at a tent meeting.

There's a great quote by Dawkins that sums up the absurdity of this frequent harangue.

"Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism. It's common usage (as opposed to it's strict usage) to try and convey such a position misplaces the categorically different meanings of knowledge and belief. This false middle is appealing in that we equate moderate positions with being reasonable and we praise open-mindedness. However, agnosticism isn't a very useful statement in a population, since most are agnostics. Some agnostics are theists, and others like myself are atheists.

It's fine that Frank may not know if there is a god (or gods) that exists. His position would not be threatened by confronting, if in the absence of absolute knowledge, the question of belief.

A
R
T

1 Reply

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know